HomeMy WebLinkAbout62.Federighi, J&G 5-11_Shoreline Master Plan comments
Michelle McConnell
From:Greg and Jamie Federighi [federighi1@comcast.net]
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:40 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Cc:'Ken/Marianne Wood'; bushnell.s@comcast.net; colleenspolley@msn.com;
corkie@olypen.com; lyeo222@aol.com; djoschu@aol.com; jsspc1@msn.com;
d2hummel@comcast.net; raincity@speakeasy.com; DOSUMURPHY@MSN.COM;
eolsen9218@comcast.net; jalopy@speakeasy.net; federighi1@comcast.net;
jposprey@msn.com; jimg@bbprintsource.com; a103footdragon@msn.com;
newdoor@hotmail.com; laura@luperrydesign.com; Lisa.Olund@SSAMarine.com;
llsrc@comcast.net; 'Mary Adams'; 'Michael F. Adams'; 'The Sinclairs';
MRandKWood@aol.com; oonelsonjr@comcast.net; WheelerLodge@nehalemtel.net;
BOLSEN9218@COMCAST.NET; daviesrl@ptdefense.com; Judodude2000@yahoo.com;
scowoo@everyheart.net; Seth.Hummel@microsoft.com; sharongustafson@comcast.net;
jsohair@juno.com; svalentine1@bcglobal.net; steve@rmgsales.com; tdavis1127
@hotmail.com; gatzs@aol.com; wurban@quest.net; 'Ken/Marianne Wood';
bushnell.s@comcast.net; colleenspolley@msn.com; corkie@olypen.com; lyeo222@aol.com;
djoschu@aol.com; jsspc1@msn.com; d2hummel@comcast.net; raincity@speakeasy.com;
DOSUMURPHY@MSN.COM; eolsen9218@comcast.net; jalopy@speakeasy.net; federighi1
@comcast.net; jposprey@msn.com; jimg@bbprintsource.com; a103footdragon@msn.com;
newdoor@hotmail.com; laura@luperrydesign.com; Lisa.Olund@SSAMarine.com;
llsrc@comcast.net; 'Mary Adams'; 'Michael F. Adams'; 'The Sinclairs';
MRandKWood@aol.com; oonelsonjr@comcast.net; WheelerLodge@nehalemtel.net;
Terrie.randecker@wamu.net; BOLSEN9218@COMCAST.NET; daviesrl@ptdefense.com;
Judodude2000@yahoo.com; 'Ken/Marianne Wood'; dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov
Subject:Shoreline Master Plan comments
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
We are writing to express our strong objection to the proposed SMP.
We are land owners of shoreline property. We are stewards for the land. There are many regulations in
place already to protect the environment, and to set guidelines for its use. This document would limit
owners’ use and control of the land too much while it expands public access and rights too much.
Public access seems a central goal, and the SMP “encourages water-oriented recreational use as an
economic asset...”, and includes wording such as “shoreline development by private entities should
provide public access when the development would generate the demand…” The public generally does not
care for the land as the landowner does, as we have seen many times, including fires left burning when
they go home, and leaving garbage that we haul out. Why are the public rights and access expanded and
mandated, while the private property owners’ rights are being further limited?
As this proposal is written, a few people in government can restrict a private landowner from making a
path to the beach, from building a dock, even from rebuilding after a natural disaster. Yet the “public
access structures shall be exempt from the shoreline buffer requirements”.
The Planning Commission recommended a 50’ buffer, with much public comment being considered, and
yet the SMP disregarded this and tripled the buffer to 150’, plus 10 more feet to a building.
The document is sweeping in scope and vague in its wording. Why should a few people in a government
office have such complete control over all others? All the years of paying taxes, caring for, and planning
for use of the land will be for naught if one cannot even build a family dwelling on it close enough to see
the water, make a path to the beach, or maintain the vegetation on their property, but the public is
mandated access.
1
If our government is for the people, why should we the people have to battle the government to uphold
our Fifth Amendment rights?
Please register our comments as opposed to the new SMP and keep us informed of any further discussion
on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jamie and Greg Federighi
2